Archive for Sexism

For a Fat Girl, She Didn’t Sweat Very Much

What! They meant it as a compliment:

“Colleen McCullough, Australia’s best-selling author, was a charmer,” the obituary began. “Plain of feature, and certainly overweight, she was, nevertheless, a woman of wit and warmth. In one interview, she said: “I’ve never been into clothes or figure and the interesting thing is I never had any trouble attracting men.”

See? She was a three with the sex life of an eight. Who wouldn’t like to be remembered so?

Soon, the hashtag myozobituary was trending on Twitter, as people across the world mocked the publication for what many viewed as a blatantly sexist treatment of a lauded literary figure.

Criticism of the obituary was twofold: One, that the paper chose to focus the top of its story on McCullough’s appearance rather than her achievements, which included spending 10 years working as a neuroscientist at Yale Medical School in the United States, establishing the neurophysiology department at Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital, and writing 25 novels.

They got around to it eventually. Haven’t you ever heard of a strong lede?

“I did not realize that this was how we were doing obituary ledes, now,” The Washington Post wrote. “Now that I know, here are some obituaries for men, updated lest we fall behind the new standard. Teddy Roosevelt: Resembling a fat walrus in little spectacles, he was, nevertheless, president at one point or another.”

I might actually read the WaPo is you write like that. But could you mention his success at pulling tail? It’s pretty important.

It’s reassuring to know that in a world of ISIS beheadings and Boko Haram kidnappings (and deflated footballs!), we can still ascend to the lofty heights of dudgeon over the immature scribblings of an anonymous obituarist. I feel safer somehow, as if a cultural landmark or two still stands to give us bearing.

PS: The First Lady of Bloodthirstan (FLOB) is not amused by this story, but I don’t think Ms. McCullough would have minded. It’s not like she was oblivious to looks.

Comments (1)

PUMA (Paper Unity My Ass) II

A white woman who’s got the job all sewn up suddenly finds herself out on her ass, replaced by a black man.

Nah, could never happen:

New York Times Executive Editor Jill Abramson was suddenly fired on Wednesday, less than three years after taking over the top editorial position at the newspaper.

In an article posted on its web site, the Times said Abramson has been “dismissed” and will be replaced by Dean Baquet, the managing editor of the newspaper.

The first female executive editor at the Times is being replaced by the first African-American to fill the post. Baquet, 57, was Abramson’s hand-picked deputy during her term in office.

“I’ve loved my run at The Times,”Abramson, 60, said in a statement released by the paper. “I got to work with the best journalists in the world doing so much stand-up journalism.”

Sulzberger told the employees that Abramson was leaving due to “an issue with management in the newsroom,” adding that there were no editorial issues during her tenure that caused the move. Abramson was not in the newsroom during the announcement, Politico reports.

“I chose to appoint a new leader for our newsroom because I believe that new leadership will improve some aspects of the management of the newsroom,” Sulzberger said, according to the Politico report. “This is not about any disagreement between the newsroom and the business side.”

The Times’ article on the dismissal states “people in the company briefed on the situation described serious tension in [Abramson’s] relationship with Mr. Sulzberger, who had been hearing concerns from employees that she was polarizing and mercurial. They had disagreements even before she was appointed executive editor, and she had also had clashes with Mr. Baquet.”

Who said Ms. Abramson was “likable enough”.

Except when she wasn’t:

The New Yorker’s Ken Auletta reported in a blog post that Abramson, the first female to serve as executive editor for the prestigious newspaper, was let go because she demanded “equal pay” to male personnel, a point immediately denied by The Times.

“Several weeks ago, I’m told, Abramson discovered that her pay and her pension benefits as both executive editor and, before that, as managing editor were considerably less than the pay and pension benefits of Bill Keller, the male editor whom she replaced in both jobs,” Auletta writes.

“‘She confronted the top brass,’ one close associate said, and this may have fed into the management’s narrative that she was ‘pushy,’ a characterization that, for many, has an inescapably gendered aspect,” he continued.

Auletta notes that Sulzberger feels the financially-strapped Times needs to be less extravagant with its salaries and that Keller had spent many more years at the paper than Abramson, which would also explain the pension disparity.

He concludes that, whether Abramson was “right or wrong, both sides were left unhappy. A third associate told me, ‘She found out that a former deputy managing editor’ — a man— ‘made more money than she did’ while she was managing editor. ‘She had a lawyer make polite inquiries about the pay and pension disparities, which set them off.'”

Nothing makes working women all warm and fuzzy like being told they’re pushy. (Especially if they’re Jewish, as I suppose Ms. Abramson to be.)

Me, I think this is what got her canned:

Abramson made waves in January when she said in an interview with Al Jazeera that President Obama was operating “the most secretive White House” she has ever covered.

“I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term,” she said in the interview.

Talk about waving a red flag at a bull! That’s like a Nigerian schoolgirl walking up to a pack of Boko Haram and saying “The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c)…asshole!”


Not Loving FLOTUS

The bangs? The persistent pushing of parsnips? The endless egging-on of exercise? The infrequency of pride in her country?

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Her clothes:

Punk is back in the fall collections — spikes at Donatella Versace and Anthony Vaccarello, garbage bag dresses at Gareth Pugh — which is not surprising given that the impact of the punk movement in fashion is the subject of an upcoming Costume Institute exhibition. It all goes back to Vivienne Westwood, who designed for the Sex Pistols and whose collaborations with Malcolm McLaren in the 1970s will feature prominently at the Met. At 71, she remains as provocative as ever while continuing to design collections shown in London and Paris.

Ms. Westwood is a spokeswoman for the environmental group Climate Revolution, so a discourse on the connection between the financial system and climate change is the price of admission to an interview with the designer. You can read her thoughts on that subject at her blog, but here are excerpts from a conversation with Ms. Westwood this week about punk, and continuing to push buttons:

You must love our first lady, who is famous for recycling her clothes.

Don’t talk about her. It’s dreadful what she wears.


I don’t want to talk about it. Really, I can’t. She’s a very nice looking lady, but it’s a nonstarter regarding clothes that suit her.
Jackie Kennedy was a different matter altogether. It just has to suit her and be something that makes a human being more glamorous. That’s what fashion is there for. It’s there to help, not just to make you look more conservative.

Don’t you just love that Times reporter choking on her latte macchiato? What?

I think Ms. Westwood is a little harsh—Mrs. Obama is a handsome lady who cuts a healthy figure in a gown—but there have been some epic fails:

I reiterate: the First Lady gets her clothes right far more often than she gets them wrong. But as a mom (as well as a FLOTUS), she’s got a lot on her plate besides gowns.

I can’t believe we’re even on the subject—damn you New York Times!


Looking At Feminism From The Perspective Of A Battered Women

Who is more likely to save an Israeli woman if she is literally locked up in an abusive home in Gaza? Haredi (ultra-orthodox Jews) or the standard issue western feminists?

You guessed it.

Every few months, we are presented with media reports about Jewish women rescued from their Muslim husbands in the Palestinian Authority or within Israel.

The stories are always similar. The women were tortured by their husbands, often locked in their homes or under constant guard by members of their husbands’ families. Either with or without the help of their Jewish families, they reached out to Yad L’Achim which rescues Jewish women and their children from Muslim husbands. Yad L’Achim volunteers plan and carry out often dangerous rescue operations and bring these women and their children to safety.

In January, Channel 10 presented live footage of one such rescue. Viewers saw relatives of a mother of four named Dana waiting anxiously at the Erez checkpoint as she and her children fled her husband and his family in Gaza and took their first steps of freedom.

During their courtship, Dana’s husband showed her every courtesy. After their marriage, he began regularly beating her and kept her under around the clock surveillance. A visit to Yad L’Achim’s website makes clear that her story is anything but unique.

Yad L’Achim’s work in saving Jewish women from violent Muslim husbands is especially notable given the nature of the organization. It is an anti-missionary haredi organization led by Rabbi Dov Lipshitz. It is not feminism that motivates its members to save these women. It is Jewish law. And specifically, the halachic command of the ransoming of Jewish hostages. According to the organization, it carries out scores of rescue missions like the one that rescued Dana every year.

The question naturally arises, why do haredim dominate what by rights ought to be a field occupied by secular feminists? Why aren’t Israeli and American Jewish feminists at the forefront of efforts to save these women from their violent husbands? Where, for instance, is the New Israel Fund? Its website brags, “The New Israel Fund founded or funded most of Israel’s women’s rights organizations and networks.”

Obviously Yad L’Achim, which defends these women’s right to live without fear is a women’s rights group. So why doesn’t NIF fund it? Yad L’Achim and other religious groups have been pilloried with allegations of racism in recent months for their public calls for Jewish girls and women not to date Arabs. In principle, these attacks seem fair. Blanket denunciations of Jewish- Muslim dating and intermarriage are problematic, even if they are justified from a religious perspective.

But whether one agrees or disagrees with the religious precepts that guide Yad L’Achim’s actions, the fact is they are not saving a principle. They are saving women and children. Shouldn’t that be enough to earn them the respect of the Left that is supposed to be motivated by concern for the weak and downtrodden? IN HER interview with Channel 10, Dana said that in Gaza, “what they do is curse the Jews 24 hours a day.”

The fact is that both misogyny and Jew-hatred are facts of life throughout the Muslim world. This state of affairs renders marriage to Muslim men a particularly dangerous prospect for Jewish women.

But the feminists throughout the Jewish world are silent on this issue. And this isn’t surprising. The egregious mistreatment of Jewish women by their Arab husbands involves two issues that the Left – which encompasses most feminist groups – is intent on ignoring: Islamic misogyny and Islamic Jew hatred. Just as the Left ignores, underplays, trivializes or justifies the fact that hatred of Jews is the most universal sentiment in the Muslim world today, so it systematically ignores, underplays or trivializes the endemic brutalization of women and girls throughout the Islamic world.

Take a purportedly feminist discussion of the impact of the Arab revolt on the position of women in the Arab world from ABC’s This Week with Christiane Amanpour on Sunday. In a segment that lasted roughly 15 minutes, Amanpour said essentially nothing about the appalling lives of women and girls under Islamic law.

When Newsweek editor Tina Brown mentioned “the barbaric custom of child brides,” in Yemen, Amanpour didn’t ask her to elaborate. In accordance with that Yemeni custom, little girls are routinely married off to grown men.

When Iraqi women’s rights activist Zainab Salbi noted that the key issue for women in the Muslim world is changing the family law that governs their societies, Amanpour didn’t ask her what she meant.

What she meant was that under Islamic family law, women and girls are considered the property of their male relatives. And their “owners” can legally beat them and rape them and genitally mutilate them and force them into marriages they object to. If the women and girls are “disobedient,” their male relatives can expect little or no punishment for murdering them.

Rather than discuss the real, truly life-threatening dangers faced by women and girls throughout the Islamic world, Amanpour presented her viewers with a superficial and false depiction of recent events in which a few well-dressed, perfectly coiffed, pretty young women in Egypt and two Western dressed women in Libya are supposedly transforming the position of women in their societies one tweet at a time.

It was a complete lie. But it wasn’t shocking. It would have been shocking if Amanpour had provided her viewers with any relevant facts about the subject she was purportedly discussing.

The contrast between Yad L’Achim and traditional feminist groups and icons worldwide is statement on the state of the free world today. Whereas the feminists obscure the plight of women living in the Muslim world, a haredi group is saving women living in the Muslim world.

For years the New Israel Fund and countless other Jewish and non-Jewish leftist organizations have waged a culture war against the haredim for what they allege is their mistreatment of women.

Many women – both Orthodox and non-Orthodox – disagree with the position of women in the haredi world. But it cannot be denied that today haredim are the only ones rescuing battered Jewish women from their abusive Muslim husbands.

I apologize for posting the entire piece. I tried cutting out the chaff, but there wasn’t any. What she is saying is the truth; we all know it, but we go through life pretending that it isn’t. Try bringing up the fate of women in the Muslim world to a liberal friend and see how fast the top can spin. But the haredi are living life as if there is a higher authority, higher than the readership of the NY Times, say, and they don’t want to be judged ill by that authority.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

Don’t Hate F*ck Me Because I’m Conservative

We have liberal fascism, as chronicled by Jonah Goldberg; we have liberal racism, as articulated by Sonia Sotomayor.

Now we have liberal sexism—and it’s just as bad:

First there was the character assassination of Miss California Carrie Prejean, in which liberals thought a deft response to her anti-gay marriage comments was to call her a slut. By saying that marriage should be between a man and a woman, Prejean did nothing more than restate the official position of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bill Clinton—and every other male politician liberals adore. There’s no doubt that Prejean’s femininity determined how the media treated her. As Miss USA owner Donald Trump said, “If her beauty wasn’t so great, nobody really would have cared.”

That’s how liberal woman-haters think. Male politicians are allowed to have opinions; young beauty pageant contestants aren’t. Even editor Jessica Valenti acknowledged that they were “fighting homophobia with misogyny.”

Then, last week, the pigs at Playboy magazine published a list of ten conservative women they’d like to “hate f-ck,” because “we may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot.”

A “hate f-ck” sounds like rape to me, which I assume was Playboy’s point. The list was filled with leering observations about the women’s “tight bodies” and “saucy looks,” and concluded with each woman’s “hate f-ck rating.”

It doesn’t matter whether they’re forbidding Carrie Prejean to say things Joe Biden is allowed to say or fantasizing about raping overly opinionated conservatives. Sexist liberals have always been open about their desire to prevent women from talking. Two years ago, some slobbering loser responded to one of my Townhall columns by writing, “I don’t know Ashley Herzog. Never heard of her before today. I would, however, go so far to say that I would date her if she promised not to say anything.”

Nice work. Especially from people who are constantly screaming about the right’s “war on women.”

Maybe some liberals will be persuaded by this argument, but none that I know, They would point out with arrogant certainty that they are liberals: by definition they cannot be sexist, or racist, or fascist. It simply makes no sense.

And then they’d be done.


Feeling Up, Feeling Down


College frat boys are the worst. Drunken, ill-behaved, smelly, hairy, horny—how do you women (and some men) stand it?

What’s that?

They’re not college frat boys?

The guy on the left … the one cupping Hillary Clinton’s breast on this cardboard cutout, that would be President-elect Obama’s chief speechwriter, Jon Favreau. He struck this rather intriguing pose at a party, and then, bummer for him, the photo got posted by a pal on Facebook.

Jon, I’m not even going to go after you for this, because it is just too easy. It is shooting fish in a barrel. My 1-month-old kid could look at this picture of you and say, if he could talk yet, “what a total idiot move.”

A Clinton spokesman described the photo as an example of just good-natured fun between former rival camps. The Post quotes Sen. Clinton’s adviser Philippe Reines as saying, quote, “Sen. Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application.”

I’m sorry, but this is the same woman who, during the campaign, pointed to example after example of sexism directed at her saying that, quote, “It’s been deeply offensive to millions of women”?

Is this the same woman who pointed out the references to her cleavage or her cackle, the comments by certain pundits and the media?

The same woman who concluded, quote, “the remnants of sexism are alive and well” after someone at a rally shouted out “iron my shirt”?

She made a point of calling people out during the campaign, and for that, she became a hero to millions of women. But now, the campaign is over.

She is joining Team Obama, and, apparently, this photo of her likeness being groped by another key member of Obama’s team doesn’t bother her a bit. Just good-natured fun, or so her spokesman says.

Put another woman in that photo, just an average woman who supported you during the campaign. Have it be her image being degraded by a colleague of hers. Would you be OK with that?

No, she wouldn’t. But she’s okay with this because now Obama owes her even more. The State Department is going to be her private fiefdom over the next four years—probably the price of her support in the campaign. This picture just proves how smart she is—it’s like a big deposit in her political bank account—and how the Left just can’t help itself.

The Left believes by its nature it cannot be racist, sexist, anti-Semitic—anything but warm, loving, and generous. The facts? What are facts compared to feelings?

Comments (3)

Sexism, Thy Party is Democrat

I rarely quote CNN commentary—and never Campbell Brown—but she gets this one right:

How many times have politicians been warned about the dangers of an open microphone? And yet, on Tuesday, the lectern mic at the National Governors Conference picked up this little nugget from Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell.

He’s having a conversation near the lectern about President-elect Barack Obama’s choice for to lead the Homeland Security Department, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. Here is what Rendell said about Napolitano:

Rendell: Janet’s perfect for that job. Because for that job, you have to have no life. Janet has no family. Perfect. She can devote, literally, 19-20 hours a day to it.

Wow. Now, I’m sure Gov. Napolitano has many qualifications for the job beyond having no family, and therefore the ability to devote 20 hours a day to the job.

But it is fascinating to me that that is the quality being highlighted here as so perfect. C’mon. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is married with two grown children. His predecessor, Tom Ridge, had a family. Anybody remember a debate about whether they would have trouble balancing the demands of work and family?

I just want to know if Governor Napolitano is willing to use a pair of pliers and a blowtorch on the job. It would save her a lot of time. She might even be able to enjoy the Washington social life.

Look, a lot of people think this way, and not just men. But Campbell Brown is factually correct: nobody says a word—not one peep—when a man takes a big job. But let a woman take any job beyond substitute teacher or clinic nurse, and she practically commits infanticide.

Just ask Sarah Palin—or Hillary Clinton for that matter.


From the Police Blotter

I think we can all agree this is very good news indeed:

Two men have been arrested in connection with an effigy of Sen. Barack Obama that was hung outside a building at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, police said Thursday.

Authorities found a life-size effigy of the Democratic presidential candidate hanging from a tree outside the school’s Mines and Minerals building on Wednesday morning, police said.

Police said they arrested Joe Fischer, 22, a senior at the university, and Hunter Bush, 21, a former student at Bluegrass Community and Technical College.

Fischer and Bush were arrested on charges of disorderly conduct, burglary and theft by unlawful taking, police said. The burglary and theft charges involve allegedly removing items from a room in the fraternity house.

Burglary and theft I get—but disorderly conduct? Doesn’t that sometimes go by another name: free speech?

If you think I’m wrong, that’s fine. I’m willing to entertain the belief that the act committed here approaches if not surpasses the threshold of shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater.

But then I hope you would join me condemning in the same terms and with the same consequences this “crime”:


A man who prompted protests by hanging an effigy of U.S. Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin by a noose from his home at Halloween has removed the display because it was causing too much trouble.

No arrest? No mugshot on the web?

What’s more, I couldn’t find a picture of the Obama effigy with the accompanying story. Or accompanying any other accounts of the incident.

Thank God for local TV.

It’s not that I want to see the offensive imagery, but Sarah Palin’s strung-up self was plastered all over the news. Why we are supposed to condemn this as the greatest hate crime since the Crucifixion sight unseen?

And why are these two punks in jail, while the West Hollywood puke walks free?

Comments (22)

Dames Against the Demigod

Colin Powell called Barack Obama “transformational”. I guess that’s as polite a way as any other for calling him two-faced (see his promise on public funding). Watch how he “transforms” on women:

Shelly Mandell, president of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: “I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. … Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women’s rights and women’s dignity.”

Prameela Bartholomeusz, DNC Platform Committee Member: “I am once again stunned at the personal and sexist attacks by the Obama campaign against Gov. Palin. This latest ad is sexist and offensive. The Gov. of Alaska has been managing and balancing a budget of $10 billion; I think she knows a bit about economics. Sen. Obama never spoke up against sexism during the primary season, and is not speaking out against misogyny during this phase of the election season — he is contributing to it. I have no confidence that Sen. Obama will fight for women’s issues if elected. This sets women back decades.”

Stephanie Bressler, Ph.D, Hillary Clinton supporter, University of Scranton women and politics professor: “It’s a sexist example of reducing a woman to an object – a wink – and denying her a voice. Her lips are actually moving, but she’s not allowed to be heard.”

Amy Siskind, ambassador for Hillary: “When Senator Hillary Clinton was demeaned and degraded during the Presidential Primary, many of us of, myself included, vowed ‘never again’. The treatment of Governor Palin by both the main stream media, and now the Obama Campaign, shows that the misogyny fest is alive and well in our country. There has been a complete and utter smear job of our fellow citizen, Sarah Palin, who is only trying to serve her country.”

Hopeful enough for you? That the change you were looking for?

I’ll admit I could watch a tape of Sarah Palin winking and not talking for the next eight to sixteen years—but I’m not an anonymous male blogger for nothing. At least I can understand how people would be offended. Obama, yet again, seems clueless. (I know, what was my first clue?)

Comments (1)

Barack Obama: Sexism You Can Believe In

He pays his female staffers roughly 25% less than males in similar positions

Why am I not surprised?

Barack Obama is doing his best to demonstrate his fiscal responsibility in keeping down wasteful spending: Pay female staff members less than their male counterparts!

If you listen to Barack Obama’s speeches, he waxes poetical about equality for women in all areas. He pauses for dramatic effect as he tells you how he wants his two daughters to have the same opportunities as our sons. One Obama campaign ad takes a swipe at John McCain, saying, “Today women work to help support their families but are paid just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. It’s just one more thing John McCain doesn’t get about our economy.”

The truth? It’s Obama who doesn’t get it. Or he does get it, and just doesn’t care: While Obama complains that women in America are paid only 77 cents for every dollar men make in the same positions, he only pays his female staff members 78% of what he pays male staff members in comparable positions.

So which are you, Obama, the pot or the kettle? Some people talk the talk… and nothing more.

Meanwhile, female staffers on John McCain’s staff earn an average of 24% more than women in comparable posts on Obama’s staff. Some people walk the walk… and THAT’S what’s needed if women want to be valued as equals.

I guess you could say Barack Obama pays his female staff members in “pocket change they can believe in.”

He is so full of it.

– Aggie

Comments (4)

NOW Endorses Historic Ticket

As in the ticket that is history:

Chair, National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC)

September 16, 2008

It is with great enthusiasm that I announce today, on behalf of the nation’s oldest and largest women’s rights organization, that the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee (NOW PAC) proudly endorses Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States.

NOW supported Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primary, and now we join with her in saying “NO” — No Way, No How, No McCain! And we proudly stand arm-in-arm with her in putting our hopes and our dreams, our hard work and our hard-earned money, behind the next President of the United States — Barack Obama, and his running mate, longtime friend and ally of women, Sen. Joe Biden.

You will note that Governor Palin is conspicuous by her absence, and that’s not my creative editing.

They ignored her.

Now, I’m just a beer-swilling, private-scratching, middle-aged guy, but it seems to me that tuning out women and their accomplishments is the hallmark of sexism.

If I may be allowed, you can put lipstick on a chauvinist pig, but she’s still a chauvinist pig.

Comments (1)

Sisterhood is Pitiful

Some of us see in Sarah Palin what we want to see—others what they don’t want to see:

Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama’s mojo just by showing up wearing rimless glasses and a skirt.

I hate that she makes Joe Biden look like John McCain and John McCain look like the maverick he is not.

I hate that Palin reminds me of Susan Sarandon’s feisty character in “Thelma & Louise.” I loved Sarandon in that movie, yet I couldn’t stand Palin’s feistiness at the Republican National Convention.

Sarah Palin makes me sick — not because she may speak in tongues — but because she is a fast talker.

It irks me that Palin is being painted as some kind of “New Age Feminist” by the so-called “elite” media.

She isn’t.

Palin is a fresh face on a weary campaign trail, and a jack-in-the-box in this election.

I see. Yes, well… oh my.

Let me point out that the columnist, Mary Mitchell, cites appearance, perception, a toy, “mojo”, and a movie character, without once referring to a specific statement or position that actually causes her illness.

Oh, and it’s not just a physical malady, you’ll be astonished to learn. It has a psych element to it as well:

Frankly, Sarah Palin scares me.

How did Cindy McCain put it during her speech at the Republican convention?

“John has picked a reform-minded . . . hockey-mommin’ . . . basketball-shootin’ . . . moose-huntin’ . . . fly-fishin’ . . . pistol-packing . . . mother of five for vice president.”

The basketball-shootin’, moose-huntin’, fly-fishin’ and pistol-packing might hold up.

Excuse me, did you mean “hold you up” as in lift you up—to new heights from which you’ll see distant horizons beyond imagining?

Or as in “stick ‘em up”?

I’ll let you guess. Mitchell follows with a stream of recycled sleazeball charges that have already been refuted several times over.

No, wait, that’s not entirely fair. She does make one concrete and truthful charge:

Palin’s extreme views on abortion (she once said she would be against her daughter having an abortion even in the case of incest or rape) and her support of abstinence-only programs should make her a laughingstock to feminists.

There it is: gaze with wonder. It is as rare as a black pearl. (For the record, the columnist is African American, and I debated whether I could even use the the previous expression without being accused of something, before saying—to myself, of course—screw it, it’s my blog, I can use language as it was intended without worrying about giving offense.)

But one paragraph hardly makes a column. So the rest is more of the same bilge:

As for “hockey-mommin,” that’s a stretch, too.

Palin is the governor of Alaska. Granted, Alaska is a sparsely populated state, but being governor of any state has to be a full-time job.

Even with a supportive husband, I doubt seriously that Palin has time to be a hockey mom unless she is making a personal appearance on a campaign trail.

And while 7-year-old Piper Palin gave the world a fuzzy moment on stage at the convention when she licked her hand and smoothed her baby brother’s hair, and when Bristol, 17 and pregnant, held Trig against her chest while her mother shook the hands of adoring fans, I couldn’t help but wonder what it’s really like for these kids.

After all, there’s no such thing as a superwoman, and children of driven moms make their own sacrifices.

When so-called “feminists” resort to calling Governor Sarah Palin a failure as a wife and mother, do they have to return their Women’s Studies degrees to the colleges and universities where they were earned? Are their subscriptions to Ms. cancelled and replaced with Cosmopolitan?

Are they even remotely conscious of the irony that while Sarah Palin threatens to remove the glass ceiling and turn it into a flower vase and a set of candlesticks, they are slopping the same old tired water of identity politics over the same old dingy floor?

If the word weren’t so loaded with sexist baggage, I’d say Mitchell was being hysterical.

Comments (2)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »